Tim Daneluk

You wriggle and squirm, but you can't escape your own words:
refute:
To disprove and overthrow by argument, evidence, or
countervailing proof; to prove to be false or erroneous; to
confute; as, to refute arguments; to refute testimony; to
refute opinions or theories; to refute a disputant.
A "disproof" is a proof of a negative. You're logic is slippery and
disingenuous. It's also untrue.
I said that as a joke about your attempting to "refute" something when
after all that blather you regurgitated about the futility of proofs.
You get it? It's a joke about your apparent inability to keep track of
your own arguments. It's an amusing geeky joke, at your argument's
expense. Get it? Hahah!
[stupid arrogant ad hominem, snipped]

You did this (describe undecidability in a pomo populist
science/philosophy ignorant way) to explain your source of criticisms.
You assert ID's "views": "The assumption that the mechnical/material
view is sufficient is wrong." Who's argument is that? That went out
years ago, and in fact complexity theory is still in its infancy. So if
that isn't science (seems "utilitarian" enough to me, so I assume you're
asserting the inadequacy thereof) then is it philosophy? 'Cause it's
old and crusty in that field too, my little poseur. Are you going to
back away from that statement as well?
Look, if you *are* going to state an argument and back it up, you really
*must* make an effort to keep things clear, alright? If you aren't
making an argument against outdated notions of the state of philosophy,
don't include it in your response! A please remember to maintain a
distinction between philosophy and science as it's very important.
[another attempt to smear and annoy, snipped]

Oh, so you aren't saying anything real, or relevant? Is that why you
change the subject and natter on some more about my "cute
trivializations"? Again, if it's not a part of your argument, don't
include it! Sheesh.
[another childish name calling, snipped]

But it appeared to be completely irrelevant to your--gosh, you don't
really have an argument so far, do you?

Ahem. This is relevant to your explanation of critique of the Big Bang
Theory as it pertains to your disregard for evolution viz. ID, how?
[asinine wannabe childish arrogance, gone!]

So we have discovered something! ID has NO value or relevance.

Here my little poseur friend, I can say that you are clearly out of your
depth and foundering in your own ideology.
Billions of dollars are invested each year in the predictive value of
the mechanics of evolution and natural selection. Trillions of dollars
a year are made using the predictive value of the mechanics behind
evolution and natural selection. Trillions.
I'm the one that used practice to demonstrate Science's value, not you.
You try to validate ID putting it above Science, by saying that because
positivism has been debunked that anything goes. Well that works in
philosophy, Buttercup, but science isn't philosophy. Science is
influenced by philosophy, but ID isn't philosophy, and it aint science.
It's a mental exercise.
Also predictive is *considerably* more than a demonstration of utility
value. You measure your ideas against the world my little poseur, and
if they match, you have a healthy world view.
[stupid little non-sequitur ad hominem (and a falsehood), snipped]

Because I inferred it from your inclusion of these limitations for
evolution, as a part of your (still upcoming... hopefully soon now)
expose of how the BBT is crap and why that shows ID > Evo as a theory?
Because you are using these arguments against evolution? Because it
doesn't leave you with an argument for ID if you disown it? Because
your apparent task was to show us why ID was valid, where evolution is a
big lie? Are you not arguing for ID? Am I to take it from this that
you are just making lots of noise and my "sound and fury" theory was right?
[stupid ad hominem, blah blah...]

How much development has occurred in the last 150 years. Yup.
Somewhere is a proof that you CANNOT GO BACKWARDS IN TIME, involving
dT/dT as an impossibility. Sometimes the best you can do is make
inference. That isn't a weakness in Science, it's a limitation of our
own abilities that spans all our observation. Nobody has ever bounced a
perfectly elastic star off another. Does that mean stars don't follow
normal newtonian physics? No, we make inferences between them and
earthly objects.
Missing fossils is NOT a refutation either. That's very simple to
explain if you just look at the amount of change to the geography over
the years. And guess what, Buttercup: there have been many, many
instances where there *were* no transitional fossils, BUT THEN THEY
FOUND SOME. Isn't that amazing! In one instant they were an
intervention by an Invisible Diddler, and the next, just another entry
in the fossil record.
These are really weak arguments, poseur, that exploit exactly that
uncertainty of the Philosophy of science (and the honest appraisal of
that) against the endeavor. Philosophy of science acknowledges that,
and science tries to overcome it by the means available.

Ah, another find! It's not wrong because of that. I'm glad we agree
the theory is not wrong. At least, I think we do. You'll probably deny
that. When did we start talking about faith and belief? I was talking
about validity of theories. Evolution has validity and is
well-established as a theory. There is huge amounts of data to support
it: in the fossil record, in breeding of livestock, in biology, in
population studies.... ID on the other hand is spaghetti monsterism.
Whimsy. Wishful thinking. A philosophical puzzle. There's no way to
begin to establish it even as a theory. The best you can hope for is
that thing you seem so disdainful of: faith. There's nothing wrong
with it, but it has no place in the establishment of a theory of speciation.
[more pretending to be a grownup (with an argument), snipped]

You are the one right here making the argument. Take responsibility for
your own actions, young man. It was your task to demonstrate an
argument for why The Big Bang was nothing more than a lot of hot air as
far as theories go, and then explain why that would demonstrate that ID
was better'n evolution. Oh wait... we already established that you
don't have one. You've backed away from everything thus far.
I make no professions of faith. Quite the opposite. Actually, in my
own mind I do regarding how to treat people, community responsibilities,
and life choices like that. Those are irrelevant here, though.
There is no assertion in anything I said that I am at the top of the
"knowledge food chain". You're all alone, teetering up there, Buttercup.
[silly child prattling, snipped]

You don't know what that is. An argument by authority is like saying
the Mayor says the space shuttle blew up because the stars weren't
right, so it must be true. Get a little reading done, and learn up on
your fallacies, Buttercup.

I don't get an answer to my question, then. I don't get a clarification
of an argument? I just get spurious accusations of fallacious
arguments? I was expecting something demonstrable from you, some way to
legitimize ID as a theory that would somehow put it in contention with
evolution as a theory. And I was willing and ready to put up my
knowledge as a counterpoint. Instead I get this, this spin. I really
truly think you should change your name to SPIN DULIEALOT. Because
that's what you're doing. You're a spinmeister, nothing more. Pathetic.
You were going to provide us with an argument, but you back away from
everything when you get your nose rubbed in your fallacies.

Is it a habit of yours, to provoke people with your snide little
arrogant shit comments, and then turn it against their argument? You
are a pathetic little monster of a boy, Buttercup. And dishonest. You
have succeeded in annoying me. That was your intention precisely so
that you could pull this little dagger out, and turn my annoyance
against me. Slimey.
er

Your use of language is sloppy. While "prove" is one possible
way to undersand "refute", it is not the only one. "Proof"
has a very particular meaning in the philosophical context of this
discussion which is why I avoided the word and used "refute" instead.

There was nothing "joking" about it. You are snide and condescending
which is why I replied in kind. If you want a serious discussion,
you have to maintain your side of it. And, here's an example of
your contemptible manner, however subtle: I *NEVER* said proofs
were "futile" or even hinted at it. I was *very* specific that
proofs *about starting propositions* are impossible. I then went on
to explain just where proofs *are* possible (in the context of validating
a theorem against an axiom). You know all this, of course, but want
to slide in some idiotic transformation of what I said - it's the only
way you can defend your increasingly-enfeebled position.
<SNIP>

The IDers. Are you capable of reading and understanding standard
English? I was reciting a list of ID claims as I understood them,
not asserting whether I agreed with those claims or not.

Another attempt to step out of your self-inflicted middenheap.
Complexity theory - whatever its current state - does not undermine
the mechanical/material premises baked into all contemporary science.
It speaks to the question of just *how* the parts get organized as they
do. It does not, however, change the notion that science is sufficiently
served by examining the parts and not the metaphysical whole. I keep
repeating the same things here in hopes it will penetrate your
already made-up mind.

Making things "clear" is impossible when the other party neither
honors the common use of language nor is capable of grasping short
sentences with simple words.

So, if I understand you (and I'm trying, *unlike* you), your claim
is that the philosophy of science in current use no longer limits
itself to understanding the universe in purely mechanical terms.
That is, there is a legitimate teleological (why and from where)
dimension to science as currently practiced. Show me.

<Explanation For The Churlish & Feeble>
1. I got asked a question
2. I attempted to answer the question in two parts:
a) A discussion on the limitations of what can be "proven"
b) A catalog of what I understand ID's claims are
3. You trivialized 2a) by reducing it to "doubt"
(Probably because you didn't understand it)
4. You repeatedly tried to hang 2b) on me as if it were *my*
stated position.
(Because you're lonely and need someone to argue with.)
</Explanation For The Churlish & Feeble>

Certainly not one simple enough for you to grasp.

Where in the post in question did I even *mention* the Big Bang or
demonstrate a "disregard" for evolution. Just for the record,
I accept that evolution operates at some scales. I am less convinced
that it is sufficient to produce the currently-observed biocomplexity.
I am open to it being demonstrated one way or the other.

Where on earth were you educated? Clearly formal logic was not
taught there. The fact that science is sometimes predictive
speaks in no way to whether ID has relevance. Just because
*you* think ID is a "flight of fancy" does not make it so.

That's right - the mathematics of it all have relevance and demonstrable
utility. And I was clearly not specific/simple enough in language
to make sure you understood what I meant. So I will try one last time.
Instead of "current evolutionary theory is no such thing", I should
have been more precise and said:
Biological evolutionary theory as understood today is not
predictive. One cannot look at a given species, and using this
theory, reliably predict anything about how that species will
evolve. Moreover, the biological theory of evolution is inferred
from observation but cannot be repeated or demonstrated
*in the large* (macro evolution).
The underlying mathematical foundations, however, have value
in their own right and have found utility value in other
disciplines.

I don't know for whom you are putting on the demonstration. I
stipulated that science has utility value in my initial post. Oh,
I forgot, Big Words confuse you. Let me translate: You didn't
need to demonstrate that science has utility to me - I already knew
that and said so long before you polluted this thread.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I defy you to cite any example in this thread where I have done this. I
have attempted to *define* ID, and have never "put it above" science.
Then again, I do not have the slavish religious devotion to any
epistemology you have for science.

Your hubris is exceeded only by your profound ignorance. No system
of knowledge can even exist without a philosophical starting point,
implicit- or explicit. Science isn't philosophy - it is the *application*
of a philosophical theory of knowledge. ID most assuredly is a
philosophy and may- or may not be shown to also be science. The
jury is still out on that one.

Really. Do grace us with more of your sophisticated expositions
on the matter. Beyond utility, just what does prediction
"demonstrate" for science?
You measure your ideas against the world my little poseur, and

I have never taken the amount of controlled substances it would take
to match your world view, nor do I care to.

So, you went from a non-existent claim on my part, to an invented
premise on yours, to a consequent inferrence to conclude that I
insinuated something I never did. I hope you are a better scientist
than writer/thinker or someone needs to pull your grant money.

Not once have I done so. Show me.

ID and evolution are potentially entirely compatible. You would however,
have to give up some of your current faith that you are the epitome
of knowlege.

No. In this particular case I was trying to define it.

I was answering a question, that's all. But I got the added benefit
of watching you soil yourself repeatedly. It's been entertaining.

It's not a "weakness" in Science, at least not inherently. But
is speaks to how much certainty we can ascribe to a theory.
A theory that can be directly experimentally verified/refuted is
far strong than one built entirely on inferrence. All scientific
theories live on a continuum between these two endpoints with
a corresponding degree of certainty.

I never said it was. But it raises fair questions about the correctness
of the theory.

But the overwhelming body of animal fossil variety is Cambrian -
a relatively short 100 Million years or so. Certainly not enough
for macro evolution to take place.
Are you saying that today's theory of evolution is so clearly certain
it bears no further scrutiny. If so, you are a fool. The science in
this area is far from established, and questioning it is not
a retreat to mysticism, an affirmation of ID, or any such thing. It
is a fair question to a discipline that keeps claiming how unbiased
it is. Scientists are not high priests and can fairly be questioned
when the evidence for their position is weak, inferrential, and cannot
be examined by experiment.

The flat earth was once well-established. That didn't make it so. *You*
are the one introducing Faith because you come unglued when I merely
record the position *of another party* that questions your orthodoxy.

No one, including the IDers, questions that evolution works in some
contexts. What is being questioned is macro-evolution
(going from primordial ooze to fish to .... to Ted Kennedy).

Ah, the High Priest has spoken. Off with the infidels' heads.

You have exhibited more Faith in the last 10 paragraphs than most
religious people do in a year. You trust a theory (macro evolution
leading to speciation) that cannot be experimentally verified, is built
entirely on inferrence, has no fossil examples, would have to have made
a huge step-function jump in just 100 million years, and has no
intelligent cause to which you are willing to stipulate . You're entitled
to hold this theory, but don't kid yourself, you're more "religious"
than Pat Robertson.

Huh? Where did I do this? I never ONCE mentioned the Big Bang in
the post that initially got your pantyhose all bunched up. You
are either elderly, confused, drug bestotted, or just addicted to
argument so someone/anyone will talk to you.

You make repeated professions of faith in this email alone. You
believe things without evidence. You discard contrary positions
without evidence. You denigrate anyone who does not share your
views. You are deeply religious. Your theology is the scientific
method and your deity is your own intellect. All well and good,
but quit claiming you're not religious - you are.

<SNIP>
You cannot explain calculus to a cat. There no explanation clearer
possible than I have already given. You just don't want to accept
it because you'd have to acknowlege your initial characterization
of my position was WRONG. And High Priests are never wrong.

How did you reach the conclusion that ID and evolution are mutually
exclusive? Oh, I forgot, it wasn't in any of your holy books.
<SNIP>

My use of language is perfectly standard. Yours only comes evident in
your denials.

[left a snip here unindicated, didn't you buttercup]

You have the order wrong... I didn't start the ad hominems. You did.
And if the proofs of theorems against axioms are against axioms whose
proofs are impossible, can one not deduce that all proofs are on shaky
ground? That is the state of the art, Buttercup. Nothing idiotic about
it.

So you were just reciting? No goals in doing so? Not answering
questions or defending an argument--just noise?

You don't seem to have anything to penetrate with, Buttercup.

That's become very clear to me in your denials and your strange and
unconventional use of "refute", among other oddities.

No? You don't need to step outside of my sentence, just keep your
disciplines in order.

That's a ragged argument, if that's what you're calling it, and misses
much of the detail. A question does impose some restrictions on the
answer, ya know.

I wasn't trivializing anything. There's nothing to trivialize,
Buttercup. You're just reciting but not making any claims based on your
recitation.

No I'm just looking for an argument that you don't have.

Or one relevant to the original question.

So you aren't concerned at all with fredfighter's query. Or my
criticisms of ID as theory. Ok. Your just making noise.

Since you only deny any attempt to circumscribe an argument, I can only
surmise your "utilitarian" description of Evolution or Science doesn't
extend to ID. But you're just making noise.

That's an absurd limitation on "predictive". It's also not true: you
forget animal husbandry (i.e., "unnatural" selection.) Demonstrable
Macroevolutin' is a canard. A phantom invented by... Behe? Can you
describe it?

Actually, they were borrowed from them. Crossover among disciplines is
slow and fraught with academic/industrial politics, discrimination. But
the incentive is there...

Hey, I'm at least making an argument, Buttercup.

Above as in the field of philosophical and metaphysical endeavors,
Buttercup, where things have a different way of unfolding.
Sorry if I didn't make that clear, but you want to give a metaphysical
exploration the wrappings of Science. But with the strictures of
Metaphysics. All muddled up.

My hubris is a mote in your own chaotic mind, Buttercup. You seem to be
making my point: Science and Philosophy are different endeavors.

Gaping roar (and snips), that's all?

more snips, buttercup? What you did seems to be the big mystery because
it has already been reduced by you to nothing.

Well it probably doesn't exist. Or anything resembling a treatment of
the question.

No, but I would have to swallow a BIG pill were I to take it on. I can
regard the religious questions with interest and zeal in the philosophical

So, just a big recitation? No point?

A question that exists only in your head.

You are confusing Science and Metaphysics again. Stop it.

I know, you never said anything beyond a recitation.

There's geological/climatic explanations for that. They're worthy of study.
How would you propose to embark on a study of ID explanations for that?

No. Sorry to disappoint you. Lots of work in evolution. Can't deny
it. And don't. But it doesn't follow that "science in this area is far
from established". Again, sorry to disappoint you. The work is there,
but it's in the margins, and there's no real conflict between the world
and the theory. Can you suggest other methods than inference into
places and times that are unreachable by modern instruments, other than
through the artifacts they leave behind? Can you make an argument for
your "weak evidence" claim when the evidence, while inferential, is
global, integrated, and all verifies the theory? Can you make a
practical argument that a theory cannot be examined by experiment if the
experiments test by inference the artifacts, and are constructed in such
a way as to affirm or refute properties of evolution?

Here again I am trying to clarify the problem with your... recitation.
Draw a line between philosophy and science, and decide where ID lies.

Yes, but competing theories that actually had a basis in the physical
world upset old theories of the earth.
Your non-defense of ID, and your non-criticism of evolution seem to be
an attempt to defend ID against evolution, but as you are merely
reciting but don't have an actual position I understand that you are
merely making noise.

Macro-evolution. please define macro-evolution clearly and in terms a
mere scientist can understand. I don't think that
ooze->fish->yourobsession really cuts it.
And while we're at it Buttercup, I know it's offtopic, but how does that
guy end up in EVERY one of your discussions?

If you kept ID in the realm of metaphysical discussion I'd be fine with
that. But there are older and far more incisive questions that treat
the question of god. ID doesn't add anything to that. ID has been from
the very beginning a political game, and its proponents have tried to
use it to foist a religious agenda upon scientific endeavors as they are
depicted in schools.

blah blah, assertions assertions, no content. Macroevolution is a
phantom, unless you can define it in a testable way. Might be a good
starting point for a budding ID Scientist. Finding proof of intelligent
intervention in what are isolated problematic elements of our
understanding of the course of evolution are flights of fancy if there's
a plausible simple explanation at hand. They are certainly not proofs
that evolution cannot explain their presence. You are asking me to make
a far greater leap of faith. I'm ready (I've done it!) to concede the
gaps, but I'm also going to prefer a simple explanation that can be
tested or that has a possibility of explication, to one of spaghetti
monsterism.

Well, I did assume you responded to the question with the intent to
answer it. And I did assume that your arrangement of recitations was an
attempt to answer the question. That I have to wait for the denials in
your responses certainly must show that. I've had some coffee this am.
Your speculation of my drug use I'll take to mean that you don't really
have any other intention than to make a lot of noise and be chaotic.

This isn't email, Buttercup. I've not done that, only assessed the
validity of various explanations of the world *as**theories*. I've not
said *I**believe* anything, but evolution has much more of my attention
as a valid theory than... well you're just reciting and denial, and
conflating Physik with Metaphysik.
If I discard a contrary position it is because there is no evidence to
support it, or it's not testable as a theory. If you want to have a
metaphysical discussion leave Evolution and Science vs. ID alone because
that's muddying it up with practice.

No it's because you can't keep your knowledge and epistemology straight,
because you aren't answering a question posed, and because you only
claim to be reciting dogma when it is evident you had a ID vs. Evo
agenda (based on the content of your recitation. A supposition I'm
comfortable with.)

Oh maybe it was the arrangement of your recitation, or the incantation
of "macroevolution".

Yup. It is, however, interesting, that old "Enoch" takes
such time and energy to refute someone he consideres not having
a worthy position, having muddled epistemology/knowledge, and
having some mystical agenda to attack his beloved evolutionary
faith. If I were really that confused with so little an argument,
you'd think he would just dismiss my argument and not bother
engaging. Methinks he's worried (and for good reason too) ...
(I will respond to your earlier question when I have a moment...)

<SNIP of an endless barage of half truths, political argument, appeal
to scientific authority, and all the rest of the shrill squealing
by a deeply-frightened ER>
You have squealed on and on about what I do and don't believe in
some vain attempt to discredit what you *think* I believe. So
let me clear it up for you. Unlike the previous post that got
your garters snapped (where I was trying to define the position of
*a third party*) here is *MY* take on things. You're free to attack
it all you like and I will read it with great merriment. Squealing
is always the sign that someone poked a nerve. So put your garters
back in order, read this in direct simple English and try not to
foam too much:
I am personally a Theist, but not necessarily an IDer - I think the jury
is still out on ID, partly because the orthodox science establishment
has dug in its heels so hard and refuses to hear them, and partly
because the IDers have conflated philosophy and science and they are
hard to understand when you do hear them.
In any case, I do not subscribe to a young earth, evolution, miro- or
macro- does not threaten me, and I am willing to hear new evidence for
any of this. I do have suspicions macro-evolution/speciation via natural
selection is at least somewhat wrong and perhaps profoundly so as I do
not see compelling evidence for it. But even if it is shown to be
incontrovertibly true, this has no bearing one way or the other on my
Theist beliefs.
I am trained in Computer Science at the graduate level and have a
passing familiarity with complexity theory, and perhaps an advanced
layman's appreciation for the physical sciences. I do not worship
science as the highest form of human knowledge - it is one of many
such sources of knowledge. Logic is not more valid than Faith - they
address different kinds of knowledge. And, finally, I do not worship
my own intellect. As a Theist, I acknowledge that my intellect - indeed
everything in the Universe - is bestowed upon me by the original
Author of it all - I am steward of what I have been given. I am not
arrogant or presumptuous enough to believe that I am the source of
my own knowledge.
You will note that *none* of this correlates to any of the attacks you've
attempted to launch my way in the past several days. Despite the
strong tone of my responses, I am not in the slightest bit angry or
irritated with you. I mostly feel sorry for you. Your god is your own
intellect and you will always find it an unsatisfying deity.

I tried to get it out of you, to help you organize your thoughts... but
that shall remain a Mystery when you reply with your denials, your
half-cocked notions of logical fallacies, your backpedaling, and your
childishly insulting postscripts to each of your replies...

Okay, Spin, I've got a bib on, I've put the coffee down, I'm sitting,
and I can barely suppress a giggle of excitment and anticipation. GO!

Young earth is not all of creationism:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html
Please refrain from equating macro-evolution and speciation, as inferred
with your forward slash, until someone has seen fit to define
macro-evolution sufficiently as to warrant a comparison. Thanks.
I'm glad your Theist beliefs don't depend upon Evo being false. Nothing
wrong with that.

CS/Business Information Systems?

That's probably a good thing, too. Glad for ya, Spin.

I don't know that I'd agree with you, but I haven't formed an opinion on
that question, meself. I'm unsure that it has any meaning.

Ooh, when I look back through your postings your arrogance really
shines. Maybe you need an outside opinion. You know what they say
about the inadequacy of any system to describe itself...

Ah. Hmm. Don't know what to say. I suspect that's an expression of
your faith because it can't be demonstrated but you feel the truth of
it, eh? Maybe I'm not expected to respond... I'll just gaze upon it.

Because that would be absurd. Knowledge is gained by study of the
world, and ourselves, and of the works of others as well as being won by
our own experience. It's like a social Commons.

Yeah, I noticed it's all pretty irrelevant to the questions, the
"answers", and their critiques.

Well, that makes one of us, Spin. I found your arrogance, your spin,
and your cheesy little insults downright bothersome, sometimes. In
fact, I don't think I've ever been annoyed by anyone in this group 'til
you responded to my post with your childish prattle about "Grownups".

That's because you are so compassionate, huh?

There's that embittered little boy ending, again. I almost thought you
were rehabilitating, Spin.
er

Not even close. Hard core Theory Of Computation, Computer Languages,
and Automata - the theoretical end of CS. But I practice professionally
in business contexts not in the Academy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP /

Good. Perhaps next time you won't attack positions that are not
held, invent straw men ammenable to your abilities to refute,
and generally behave boorishly when the adults are speaking politely.
My objection and subsequent response to you were not rooted in the
substance of your disagreement. They were rooted in the cavalier
manner you misrepesented the intent and content of my original
post so you could appear to be reducing it to ashes. Liars and
charlatans deserved to be exposed and treated as such. If you'd
behaved honestly in the first place, I wouldn't have ever had
to spank you publically and we could have had a civil disagreement
and discourse.

No. You deserve pity because there is considerable evidence
(provided by you) that you do not value truth - you prefer
to win the rhetorical battle even if you have to resort
to fraud and misreperentation. People who do this are inevitably
miserable humans.

I am not even slightly bitter. I live a fairly joyful life. I
hope you discover how to do this as well. (Hint: It starts with
being honest with yourself and then with everyone else you deal with.)

That was a very nice question. An opportunity to criticize the Big Bang
Theory, and offer sources, cites.
I would have been very interested in knowing how that would undermine
the theory of evolution or support ID seeing as how it's, as you say,
irrelevant^Wofftopic.
By the way, I found your posts in the Jimmy Carter thread to be really
well done.
and offtopic. :)
er

You need to understand the context of the quote. Someone described ID as
irrational "mumbo jumbo". I responded with the above quote as an example
where non-provable assumptions served as the basis for *science*. It had
nothing whatsoever to do with "undermining evolution" or "supporting
ID". It had to do with trying to swat away this contention (implicit in
much of that thread) that science is somehow epistemicly "purer" and/or
that ID is an idiotic position. In fact, ID is built on Faith and so
is Science.

I am entirely clear on the distinction and have no conqsequent problem:
1) The philosophy of science requires "faith" in certain unprovable
starting points about the nature and efficacy of the methods of science.
2) The practice of science is built upon the philosophy of science.
3) By Transitive Closure, the practice of science is thus built
(ultimately, subtlely) on a kind of "faith". That fact that this
belief is non-religious does not make it any less "faith".

On the contrary, Philosophy is perfectly happy and interested in
pursuing the question of god, and acknowledges the limitations of
knowledge: they are its bread. Philosophy acknowledges its
limitations, and even spends a great deal of ink studying them.

Science doesn't do anything other than provide a framework of inquiry.
Philosophy informs that, and describes its limits.

blah. The fact is, ID proposes a "theory" that rightly is a
metaphysical question, not a testable theory of science.

However, as I pointed out in email and as was implied by my
comments at the time, the criticisms were not directed at the
Big Bang model. Rather they were directed at a straw man,
a misrepresentation of the Big Bang model, essentially the
'dumbed down' version such as one might see presented on
PBS.
IMHO, the weakest part of the Big Bang model is the underlying
assumption that physical law was always the same as our current
understanding of physical law.
As we have learned in the 20th century, physical law, as it was
understood in the 19th century, was proven to be incorrect regarding
conditions significantly different from everyday macroscopic
phenomena. When we explored the physics of the very small,
the very fast, and the very massive we found that physical law,
as it was previousl understood was a 'special cases' of more
general physical law. It should not surprise us if we find that
20th century physics is incorrect IRT the early universe--what
we observe to be physical law in the present univers is a special
case of more general physical law.

I suppose by that you mean that Science is based on faith in the
scientific method. On that point I have no issue.
However, the scientific method pwer se, is based on doubt.

Log in

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.